People v. Greaves

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Greaves

720 N.E.2d 863, 94 N.Y.2d 775, 698 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3426

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 720 N.E.2d 863 (People v. Greaves) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Greaves, 720 N.E.2d 863, 94 N.Y.2d 775, 698 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3426 (N.Y. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robbery, reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a firearm. The issue on this appeal by leave of a Judge of this Court is whether the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that “the indictment is not evidence of anything” constitutes reversible error.

*776 We conclude that the omission in this case of this instruction does not constitute reversible error. We agree with the Appellate Division that, while the instruction should be given, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial, considering the court’s jury instructions in their entirety. The absence from the final charge to the jury of the instruction that the indictment is not evidence — which was given during jury selection — does not warrant a reversal of the conviction in this case. In the whole context here, we also note that the trial court gave ample emphasis in the final jury charge that the jury’s verdict must be based on an assessment only of the evidence — which the court summarized — and that the defendant was always protected by the presumption of innocence.

Carter v Kentucky (450 US 288) and Taylor v Kentucky (436 US 478) are distinguishable and therefore do not compel a different result. Lastly, defendant’s additional reliance on People v Newman (46 NY2d 126) is misplaced. There, this Court concluded that the trial court’s refusal to inform the jury in its charge that the prosecution had the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt as specifically mandated by CPL 300.10 (2) was reversible error.

We have considered defendant’s other claim and conclude that it is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robbery, reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a firearm. The issue on this appeal by leave of a Judge of this Court is whether the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that “the indictment is not evidence of anything” constitutes reversible error.

*776 We conclude that the omission in this case of this instruction does not constitute reversible error. We agree with the Appellate Division that, while the instruction should be given, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial, considering the court’s jury instructions in their entirety. The absence from the final charge to the jury of the instruction that the indictment is not evidence — which was given during jury selection — does not warrant a reversal of the conviction in this case. In the whole context here, we also note that the trial court gave ample emphasis in the final jury charge that the jury’s verdict must be based on an assessment only of the evidence — which the court summarized — and that the defendant was always protected by the presumption of innocence.

Carter v Kentucky (450 US 288) and Taylor v Kentucky (436 US 478) are distinguishable and therefore do not compel a different result. Lastly, defendant’s additional reliance on People v Newman (46 NY2d 126) is misplaced. There, this Court concluded that the trial court’s refusal to inform the jury in its charge that the prosecution had the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt as specifically mandated by CPL 300.10 (2) was reversible error.

We have considered defendant’s other claim and conclude that it is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 N.E.2d 863, 94 N.Y.2d 775, 698 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-greaves-ny-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack